Eloquent post Denice. Spot on!

Well said. I applaud your comment.

ncc,

very astute.

Republicans feel entitled to exceptions to the rules and they have no idea how despised they are for behaving this way.

like tom coburn implied strongly yesterday on fox news sunday in regard to newt gingrich as nominee for for POTUS, some leaders "expect things from others that they will not do themselves".

Are you sad that 'Jesse Jackson' is still around considering his 'indiscretions'? Or are you just glad that a Black Republican is out?

America would be better off with Herman Cain or any other of the Republicans currently running for President than the 'Stealth Socialist' we have in the White House. America has the wrong person in the White House and not just the numbers show it, people have never been more divided in America history since the Civil War and you can thank the pseudo president in the oval office for that.............

The right people in Congress would be Representatives that actually uphold their oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, the wrong people are Democrats who advance socialism thru democracy.

I agree with you 100%, God forbid if Gingrich,Cain, or anyone else from the republican side got elected we would really be in serious trouble. It amazes me that people think any one of those candidates could fix the state we are in over night.It took time to get where we are and it will take time to snap out of it. Be patient and optimistic.

Idiot!

dug,

as we have seen, many people in washington have "indescretions". but the democratic party does not hold themselves up as the ideal, they do not hold themselves up as the party of family values, god, the bible and christianity.

democrats are not immune from "indescretions" and the consequences that may occur when they partake. we have seen both parties suffer in this regard. i'm jsut surprised at how many women came forward, and herman lied (my opinion) about all of them, defending himself against a "left-wing conspiracy".

again, President Obama is not a socialist. the right wing republican party has talking points that they follow closely. they ADHERE to them, even when it means that they have to deny ideas that they brought to the table because it was a republican idea. lets use the "individual mandate" as an example. a republican idea that got rid of free-loaders because everyone had to pay something for their health care is now declared unconstitutional. and the republican party, the party of tax cuts, has finally found a tax cut they don't like, the payroll tax cut for the middle class that Barack Obama wants to extend or make permanent. but the republicans don't mind raising taxes on the middle class, because they are not the rich, and they have voted against similar bills in the past.

the republicans use the bible, god, family values and the constitution as PROPS to make voters think that they are the party of high moral standard, when we have seen that their morals are no better, and might be worse than the democratic party, if for no other reason than they are holding themselves up as the "godly party, the constitutional party".

at least part of the reason that america is so divided has much to do with the republicans/baggers in washington. they act like its their job to bring President Obama down. they speak horribly about President Obama, disrespectfully. they forget that they were elected to office to work with the President in getting things done for the american people. and don't bring up the 2010 elections, because the american people are having buyers remorse over what they voted into office (look at wisconsin and ohio).

W. bush was the pseudo president. he was "annointed" by the supreme court in 2000 (his daddy's friends), and in 2009 they stole over 90,000 votes from Kerry in ohio by hacking into computers.

the President isn't the only one elected to office who is expected to do a job. the republicans have been elected to do their jobs as well. the american people watched the debt debacle, and that is why the republicans and baggers have the biggest disapproval ratings in congress (77 and 84% respectively). now they see the republicans holding the president up again on the payroll tax cuts. are you all so naive that you think you can get by with this gridlock?

there is more than enough criticism for the republican party, yet you think they are the only ones who can protect and move this country forward.

you are wrong.

suzette,

Of course Obama is a Socialist and no amount of SPIN from you will change the facts on the ground about Obama's socialist tendencies and policies.

The modern Democratic Party for all practical purposes should be called 'The Democratic-Socialist Party', if you compare the party platforms of both you will find they have much in common and very little separation between ideology.

Why does Senator Bernard Sanders 'caucus' with the democrats instead of the Republicans? Because his socialistic principles are more inline with the democratic rather than the republican party.

You are so confused about how legislation is suppose to be made, both democrats and republicans swear an oath to the defend the Constitution that means they are suppose to put 'constitutional principles' above party or personal principles so in theory there really should be no differences between the parties if 'constitutional principles' are considered first. Of course we know this does not happen because most of the time the Democrats are at odds and undermining the Constitution by advancing socialism thru democracy. The Republicans should stop the Democrats every-time they try to undermine constitutional principles to make laws. Once the democrats and republicans come together in CONSENSUS on constitutional principles legislation can move forward, the problem is democrats want to make legislation based on socialistic, not constitutional principles so we have 'deadlock'...this is the way our republican form of government was meant to be run if CONSENSUS was not found.

Please explain the concepts of 'genuine socialism' and how it relates to progressivism, and how 'republicanism' relates to the Constitution.

dug,

President Obama is NOT a socialist, and though you think it is true, saying it over and over does not make it so.

i have a hard time with your defense of the republicans as the "party of the constitution". is signing a pledge with loyalty to grover norquist constitutional? is having a primary goal of destroying President Obama constitutional? is the "individual mandate" constitutional when it is a republican idea? you betcha!

you are making it sound in your post above that ALL democratic principles are socialist. explain to me the republican individual mandate. why is it unconstitutional now that Barack Obama is president? when a democrat holds the Presidency, that is when the republicans become concerned about spending and the size of gov't. since at least nixon on, the republicans are responsible for most of the debt, and under republicans the gov't is always bigger, we saw that with reagan, and again with W. bush. but now that Barack Obama is president, all of a sudden we are hearing about the deficit and the size of gov't again from republicans. as long as the republican party is in charge of the checkbook, we don't hear a word from you all about the debt or size of gov't.

as for your "consensus" theory: of course as the first african american President, Barack Obama has a price to pay. i have my own feelings about the level of racism/bigotry directed toward our president, and i am not saying you are racist, but i believe that is part of the problem. the extreme right, the religious right hates our President. even before he took office, the decision was made by many people on the conservative right to destroy this man by any means possible. the republicans in washington AGREED not to work with President Obama, so you are misinformed if you think that the gridlock in washington is because they are trying to prevent socialist principles that are not constitutional.

when W. was president the democrats voted with him 51% of the time, and they didn't like him very much either, but they respected the office. the republicans have voted with Barack Obama 5% of the time. their past history shows us that they love socialist principles as long as they get to determine who gets the socialism.

i question the gridlock, and the true purpose behind it, when the constitution for the republicans is just a prop. other things that the republicans have stood behind in the past are now just a sweet memory because of a democratic president. i would say that we are not counting on the republicans to persue constitutional principles, they only care about 2 things-tax cuts for the rich, and destroying President Obama.

please explain how the individual mandate is constutional and not a socialist principle when it is a republican idea.

suzette,

Read Newt Gingrich's book "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine." or "Radical-in-chief : Barack Obama and the untold story of American socialism" by Stanley N Kurtz and then get back to me...anyway 'a rose is a rose by any other name'...

Since Obama represents socialistic principles it is quite natural for Republicans to oppose him. I care more about what Republicans are doing today than in the past, and today they need to uphold their oath of office and not cave into Obama's socialistic designs on America.

It's not 'my theory' it is a fact our Representatives swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a president or party....they are to put the Constitution first. Democrats fail to uphold constitutional principles more times than Republicans that's a given or Democrats would be in CONSENSUS more often with the Republicans than they are today.

I don't know where you got your data, but its completely false....from 2005 to 2008 the Democrats in the Senate voted with GWB 81% of the time compared to the Republicans voting with Obama from 2009 thru 2011 57% of the time. This year the Republicans are voting on average with Obama 78% of the time. History has shown GWB was not the ideal 'Constitutional Republican', and Obama has no interest in upholding his oath of office or he would have veto H.R. 3590 for being unconstitutional.

I would love to answer more of your questions, but you still have not attempted to answer mine....

Please explain the concepts of 'genuine socialism' and how it relates to progressivism, and how 'republicanism' relates to the Constitution.

Quid pro quo...my dear Suzette...quid pro quo...

dug,

i understand the basic concept of republicanism as it relates to the constitution. what the republicans wanted to do was to have a form of gov't with checks and balances on the functions so that the constitution itself would stand the test of time with changes that were to come with a growing country. what was not determined in the constitution was to be left up to the states and the people, not the congress.

i hear "states rights" from republicans all day long except when it comes to birth control, abortion, gay rights, or voting rights. i am sure there are other things that the republicans want to control and have the congress decide also. if you agree with the agenda of the republican party, you probably want these things regulated also.

where the republicans do not want regulation are on guns and wall street. you probably do not see the hypocrisy in any of this.

socialism is an economy where the gov't provides services. it never stands alone, because as a capitalist nation, we have socialized police and fire protection, public health, schools, roads and bridges.

progressivism is a politcal philosophy. it determines the success of a system by how much it improves the lives of the average worker, not by the GDP or by the Fortune 500.

progressives are not anti-capitalists. when capitalism is not regulated properly it becomes unstable and crashes. we saw this in 1933, and it is happening again now. for a little while, socialism will provide stability until the system is stable again, then we move back to capitalism.

the republicans in washington, and on this blog love to throw around words like "socialism", "communism", "marxism", "fascism". you all use these words to demean President Obama and the democratic party. i don't know if you watch fox news, but viewers of fox are the most mis-informed, and they use words like that alot, just like rush limbaugh.

the republican party only SAYS they are constitutionalists. they do not follow the constitution to the letter but think that the democrats should do so. again, the republican party, do as i say, not as i do. as we have seen the republicans and the democrats might interpret the constitution differently, JUST AS THEY DO THE BIBLE. back in 1864 when the republican party started, that might have been their intent to be strict constitutionalists, but in 1964 the republican party changed when Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights act into law. democrats in the south became republican to stand against the civil rights act, and to seperate themselves from President Johnson. the republicans show their true colors every day by trying to take personal rights from women, minorities, and gays. how is taking voting rights from american citizens, and keeping civil rights from gays constitutional?

unless of course you think it serves a greater good because they have the "right" intentions LOL.

Suzette,

Like most Americans [including republicans] you don't understand ‘Republicanism’ and how it relates to our Constitution but you are on the ‘right track’. Since you are a indoctrinated progressive democrat you lack the fundamental knowledge of what ‘Republicanism’ truly is because Progressives have control of our educational system for so many decades and indoctrinate Americans with the phony baloney idea that we as nation were created to be a ‘Democracy’, nothing could further from the truth. Democracy is not even mention in our DOI or Constitution and for very good reasons; the Framers had very little respect for democracies and did not what to create something that would eventually fall to the MOB. So the Framers created a unique Constitutional Republic with limited government based on enumerated powers and three co-equal branches of government designed with ‘checks and balances’ where each branch was suppose to keep the other branch in ‘check’ with the Constitution. The Senate’s main purpose was to safeguard ‘State Rights’ while cooling out the passions of democracy so cooler heads would prevail.

One the elements that makes our Republic unique is our Representatives swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic, not to a King, Dictator, President or in your case to advance socialism thru democracy without going thru the Article V. Amendment Process.

Republicanism is when our Representatives adhere to the Constitution’s text within its Amendments as written, intended and ratified, but most importantly to its principles. Simply speaking ‘Republicanism’ is the Constitution incarnated where its Representatives and the American People bring its words to life as the Supreme Law of the Land.

Republicans want ‘smart’ regulations on guns, the environment and Wall Street, so you are wrong.

One element of socialism is government ownership and control over goods, services and the economy but under our Constitution governmental services such as police, fire, schools, roads and bridges along with our Military is consider aspects of Republicanism that fall under the ‘General Welfare Clause’, not socialism.

Progressivism is the political doctrine of ‘genuine-socialism’. The government does not outright own the means of manufacturing of goods and services but instead controls the economy thru enforcing so many rules, regulations and laws that the ‘Free Market’ and personal liberty no longer exist it’s replaced by 51% of the vote…THE TYRANNY OF DEMOCRACY!

Senator Bernard Sanders and your good buddy Lawrence O’Donnell don’t seem to think being a ‘Socialist’ is demeaning, they are wear the label proudly. Maybe Obama is too ashamed to come out of the closet because he knows as well as I that socialism is truly SEDITION against our Constitution and one really can’t be a socialist and swear an oath to defend the Constitution without deceit and lying.

True, most Republicans in Congress would not be considered ‘Constitutional Republicans’ like me, but the Republican Party is closer to the Constitution than the Democratic Party. You seem to think Republicans are too be ‘perfect’ and without human flaws, sorry to disappoint you but Republicans are just as human as Democrats. But Democrats tend to undermine the Constitution instead of upholding it.

Nonsense, asking Americans to prove they are citizens with official government documents is not taking away anyone’s rights!

According to the DNC’s own “2008 Survey of the Performance of American Elections Final Report” 65% of registered democrats support ‘Proof of Citizenship Requirements, so most of you here at TPM along with the DNC Leadership represent a very small percentage of democrats that want to undermine our republican form of government. You all must think your fellow democrats are stupid and easily persuaded [indoctrinated] to abandon their common sense and integrity to accept that people should not have to prove they are citizens to vote, that 'everyone should vote'...that's SEDITION!

We have a second Amendment Right to 'Bear Arms' but we must all provide the necessary paperwork and wait out the time period to buy a gun. No one can walk into a Gun Store and buy a gun without any type of identification but that logic doesn’t seem to sink into the seditious progressive democrat who wants an unfair advantage at the voting booth to undermine our Constitution with seditious socialism.

The Democratic controlled Congresses of 1993 and 2002 voted down any attempts to add ‘proof of citizenship requirements’ to the registration and voting process effectively creating a system of institutionalized voter fraud. If there are no mechanisms in place to stop the non-citizen voter and very little investigations actually cross-check the voter database to jury duty declines due to non-citizenship status, non-citizens are free to vote in our elections without a chance in hell of them getting caught, and that’s exactly what the Democrats wanted when they voted down any proof of citizenship requirements in the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and HAVA 2002.

In 2005 a Georgia law requiring a Photo ID to cast a ballot was challenged in court by left-wing organizations that claimed it disenfranchised the poor and minorities. During the course of two years of litigation, however, the plaintiffs could not find as single eligible voter in Georgia who was disenfranchised by Georgia’s Photo ID Law.

Democratic Congressmen Greene and Moran demanded Photo ID at their town hall meeting to make sure only people from their political districts were attending their meetings but they both voted against Photo ID Laws at the Voting Booth. Their hypocrisy proves how lame the DNC Leadership and the seditious progressive democrats arguments about ‘Voter ID Laws’ really are!

The sad truth about the spurious cries of racism is that the real disenfranchisement of American voters comes from actual non-citizens voting, not from efforts to prevent it. After all, every fraudulent vote cancels out the vote of an honest citizen….and that’s was the Democrats intent and genius behind voting down any proof of citizenship requirements in NVRA of 1993 and once again in HAVA 2002.

dug,

when reagan was in office the republicans learned how to co-opt anything and everything that seemed american. they did this with the constitution, the bible, the flag, the iraqi war. if we as americans disagreed with anything that the republicans saw as an ultimate expression of being american, we were told we were unpatriotic. this has been a common theme from the republicans to the democrats: we SAY that we love the constitution, so therefore we are patriotic and you are not.

what i have seen from the repubs in washington is that they use the constitution as a prop. just as "Obamacare" has been deemed constitutional or unconstitutional depending on the judge (even a republican judge said it was constitutional, he was probably a RINO, LOL), the voter ID laws have also been declared unconstitutional by some judges.

newt gingrich and mitt romney liked the idea of the individual mandate, and found it constitutional when it was their idea. now because Barack Obama is president, all of a sudden it isn't constitutional anymore. we know they hate regulations, but they hate freeloaders even more. the republicans put the individual mandate out there to stop the freeloading.

as for voter ID laws people are disenfranchised with voter ID laws. it affects students, african americans, the elderly and the poor the most. in 1980 when paul weyrich stated to about 15,000 right wing (evangelicals?) that the republican party doesn't want everyone to vote because that doesn't help the GOP, the republican party has been doing everything in its power to keep people from voting. bill hemmer said on fox news that voter regulations help the republican party.

you assume that the democratic party wants voter fraud, and encourages it. that isn't true. while there may be a few cases of dis-honesty, the democratic party is not working in lockstep like the republican party is doing now to supress voters in several states.

i don't have to tell you that during the 8 years of the bush adminstration more than 300 million votes were cast in the nation for local, county, state and federal elections (msnbc covered this yesterday) and only 86 cases of voter fraud were prosecuted successfully (.00000025). so why are the republicans fighting so hard to stop something that rarely happens? why do they want to make it possible for the republican to lose the popular vote in a state, but still win most of the electoral votes?

i will have to do some research about that 2 year litigation in GA, because i find it very difficult to believe that voters were not affected. i have already found personal stories of several who were not allowed to vote.

for the past three years all we have heard from the constitutionalists are how their freedoms are being taken away from them. yet, they seem not to care if women have the freedom to take birth control, if gays have the freedom of civil rights, or if citizens have the right to vote. i don't care how you all spin it, voter fraud is much less of a problem than what the republicans are doing to suppress voters.

i also find it interesting that of the 86 voter fraud cases, not all of them were republican. i am sure that some of them were democratic and independent voters as well. yet the republican regulations affect democratic voters. in texas you can use a gun ID to vote, but not a student ID? this fits exactly with the feelings that the republicans have about students voting democratic.

how is any of this constitutional?

i already know that the republican party is far from perfect. but when they hold up the constitution and the bible as examples of who they are, and who we should all try to be like, they deserve the scrutiny and in fact are asking for it.

i do not expect the republican party to be perfect. i just wish they would stop their hypocritical behavior. they are unembarassable. they have so much hatred for this president that they do not care that we see how hypocritical they are. they have so much hatred for this president, that they think that holding up the constitution as a prop belies their hypocrisy.

Suzettee,

“the voter ID laws have also been declared unconstitutional by some judges.”, oh really prove it!

The fact is the Ninth Circuit of Appeals ruled that Arizona's Prop 200 proof of citizenship requirement DID NOT violate the Voting Rights Act § 2, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 OR was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth or Twenty-fourth Amendments of the Constitution, but only ruled it was void because it was inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 solely because Congress [Democrats] voted against any proof of citizenship requirements. So if indeed the Republicans were the Majority in Congress back in 1993 we would indeed have proof of citizenship requirements and non-citizens would not be voting in our elections, and Al Franken or Michael Bennett would not be Senators and the Democrats would not be making shambles out of our country.

“in texas you can use a gun ID to vote, but not a student ID? this fits exactly with the feelings that the republicans have about students voting democratic.”, no it stands to reason the a ‘gun ID’ would have done a validation check on citizenship, where a student ID would not. But you are not a reasonable person; just an ideologue spinning progressive propaganda and conjecture to duped your fellow democrats into not supporting ‘Voter ID Laws’.

“i don't have to tell you that during the 8 years of the bush adminstration more than 300 million votes were cast in the nation for local, county, state and federal elections (msnbc covered this yesterday) and only 86 cases of voter fraud were prosecuted successfully (.00000025).”, this is one of the most misleading statements MSNBC has put on the AIR. That figure of 86 is itself a tainted piece of nonsense designed to convey a political posture and demonstrates the genius of the democrats when they create this system of institutionalized voter fraud.

Please don't evade this question...

How can you catch a non-citizen voter before they vote if no mechanisms are in place to stop them?

MSNBC with its ‘Block The Vote’ campaign is aiding and abiding the non-citizen to break our laws…

False claims of citizenship. 18 U.S.C. § 911

Section 911 prohibits the knowing and willful false assertion of United States citizenship by a noncitizen. See, e.g., United States v. Franklin, 188 F.2d 182 (7th Cir. 1951); Fotie v. United States, 137 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1943). Violations of Section 911 are punishable by up to three years of imprisonment. As noted, all states require United States citizenship as a prerequisite for voting.

MSNBC has also used numbers from the ‘Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School Of Law’ an organization that has a dog in this hunt and the dog’s name is ‘democrat’. If you actually read “THE TRUTH ABOUT “VOTER FRAUD” it does not provide any links its numbers and makes foolish statements like this base solely on conjecture…

“Most citizens who take the time to vote offer their legitimate signatures and sworn oaths with the gravitas that this hard-won civic right deserves. Even for the few who view voting merely as a means to an end, however, voter fraud is a singularly foolish way to attempt to win an election. Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine – but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”

…are we to accept people are ‘rational’ and behave correctly at all times? Your posts alone prove how ‘irrational’ people can be, and some of these people could care less about our election laws, especially if they are in the country illegally or have committed identify thief already. And some people like seditious progressive democrats actually vote down any proof of citizenship requirements for the sole purpose of giving their party an illegitimate advantage during an election thus disenfranchising citizen voters like me.

Remember I was the first one who told you that you, MSNBC, the DNC, and the rest of the seditious progressive democrats on this blog were the minority.

Since 2008 75% of registered voters along with 65% of democrats agreed with ME, not you or the DNC and MSNBC. You are on the wrong side of the issue again and are bound to lose if reasonable people have their way.

But Suzette I must give you credit for being an outstanding ‘bloviator’, your skills at spinning the issues to support your political dogma are worthy of your own MSNBC cable news show! Who knows you may be replacing Lawrence O’Donnell someday...har..dee...har..har...

The CBO says that the debt was increase by these Presidents, Ronald Reagen by 186%. George W. Bush by 72%. Bill Clinton by 41%. And Barack Obama by 23%. So if we are to believe the CBO, the reason our debt is so out of hand is mainly because of two Republican Presidents. Something to think about isn't it.